Sunanda K Datta-Ray: Bush's new-found friend

WHERE MONEY TALKS

Amidst all the gushing over Manmohan Singh's American odyssey "" with "historic" dripping endlessly from every reporter's pen "" very little attention has been paid to the abrupt cancellation, sorry, postponement, of Shaukat Aziz's tour.

Recalling the tantrum Jawaharlal Nehru threw in 1949 when Liaquat Ali Khan followed him to the US, and was accorded exactly the same honours, the gesture appears to be pregnant with symbolism.

But is the message really what we yearn to hear? And even if it is, will nuclear supremacy in the subcontinent further what the prime minister so movingly called the "social and economic salvation" of a billion Indians?

This is the real "" perhaps only "" challenge. Recalling Napoleon's observation about some being born great, some achieving greatness and some having greatness thrust upon them, the US promises to thrust greatness of sorts "" "global power" or "major world power" status "" on India.

Apparently, recognition of India as a "nuclear weapons power" while denying Pakistan that accolade is an important step in the process. But can the denial be taken for granted?

That must be considered before the more enduring question of whether a south Asian "Upper Volta with missiles" (the old Soviet Union) will help to realise the vision of resurgent India with a credible social safety net and sound education and healthcare policies that Singh invoked at Washington's National Press Club.

Only the other day, Condoleeza Rice spoke of south Asia's military balance, justifying arms sales to both countries as essential to preserve the peace. This was why Nehru was equated with Liaquat all those years ago.

It was US policy then to obliterate the logic of geopolitics by pouring money and arms into a Pakistan that served its Cold War objectives. It is similarly US policy now to promote a Pakistan that furthers America's so-called war on terrorism. No great power performs a 180 degree volte-face overnight.

Let it not be forgotten either that hard on the heels of the defence pact that Pranab Mukherjee and Donald Rumsfeld signed, the US rushed to assuage Pakistani fears by promising Pervez Musharraf its Hawkeye-2000 surveillance aircraft. The balancing continues.

A great power understands the strengths and weaknesses of the pieces it moves around on the chequerboard of realpolitik. It knows "" and this is recorded in the reports of countless American journalists and the confidential notes of countless American diplomats "" that Indians adore being patted on the head. The frenetic ecstasy of Bill Clinton's presidential visit confirmed that hankering.

So, it should surprise no one if the Bush administration ignores the unsolicited advice of commentators (who are mostly liberal Democrats anyway and, therefore, not worth taking seriously) and goes on to shower the same, or similar, nuclear favours on Pakistan.

After all, when the US began to relax the sanctions imposed in 1998, it was to help Pakistan that needed to buy wheat from an American state that needed to sell. India was an accidental beneficiary.

As noted, Pakistan worked for the largesse. It furthered containment of the Soviet Union. It promoted the Afghan mujahedeen and kept an eye on Ronald Reagan's crescent of danger. It was America's eyes and ears.

If the US dumps Pakistan now "" which I don't think it will "" or if it is in the business of recruiting another south Asian protege "" which seems more likely "" it is obviously to serve aims that are increasingly acquiring an imperial character.

Those aims may well be India's too. On the other hand, they may not. My point is that hardly a whisper of the quid pro quo can be found in this week's bonhomie, agreements and media rejoicing.

Of course, India is not for sale. Of course, Singh is an honest man utterly dedicated to the task he has undertaken. But there being no such thing as a free lunch, in diplomacy or elsewhere, we must ask what the US expects of India in return for what Richard Haas, the Republican strategic thinker, would have called "a proliferation of proliferation policies."

George W Bush is bending the rules and undermining what Americans regard as critical domestic laws and international treaties to favour India. Why?

Even more to the point, how will nuclear recognition and assured supplies of nuclear fuel drag millions of Indians out of the morass of deprivation? The profile of Indian poverty needs no elaboration. More than 300 million people eke out an existence on less than the equivalent of a dollar a day.

I see from a recent World Health Organisation publication that India has the third highest child mortality rate in the world, ranking just below Pakistan and Bhutan. Another new survey, by Action Aid International, claims that extreme poverty drives 99 per cent of male beggars and 97 per cent of females to the streets. We have 12 million child labourers.

No one is more conscious of these tragic blots than Singh. He must now explain to us how his achievements in the US will help to wipe them out. For "" returning to Napoleon "" a great power, like an army, also marches on its stomach.